What is the Christian equivalent of a Jihad?

What is the Christian equivalent of a Jihad?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Crusade

As in from the text itself?

There is none, really, because Christianity remained in the apolitical side of things due to the nature of its founders.

Islam though had to really think about war in the context of religion because its founder happened to be a statesman as well as a prophet.

>statesman

Yes? He was a political leader.

seems to me that any form of Christian jihad would be defensive in nature

Since 1095, christianity also has a "holy war", a war that is spiritually necessary and benefiting.

deus vult

the muslim idea of jihad originated as a struggle on the personal level for Islam, and later was developed by the Rashidun Caliphs into the idea of fighting for Islam.

Cringe

Religion is literally never apolitical

St. Augustine's Just War

He was...

t. edgy 14 year old

A crusade is a centralized call for military action called for by the Pope or a secular prince who has Papal authority. The defining act is the call for war and the promise of forgiveness of sins committed during wartime for participants (fighting on the Pope/Prince's side, of course).

This makes it different from Jihad (in the context of holy war, not the inner struggle) as Jihad is constant, completely decentralized, and always being waged as long as there are non-Muslims. A crusade only lasts until the Pope or Prince who called it declares it done. Crusades aren't just Christian Jihad and Jihad isn't just Islamic Crusades, the two are fundamentally different.

There's no exact equivalent, but it would probably be crusade/holy war

>Christianity
>Apolitical

Sure.

The closest in Christian ecclesiology would probably be the Church Militant, or the idea that Christians should always be "fighting the good fight" and struggling against evil on Earth.

>Crusades aren't just Christian Jihad and Jihad isn't just Islamic Crusades, the two are fundamentally different.
This is the real take-away from your post. The very nature of Christianity and Islam as a whole are fundamentally different and it's silly to try to find an equivalent.

Maybe it's wrong to say that religion is apolitical, but the nature of religion is definitely removed (interpret this word more figuratively) from politics.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar

The establishment of Christianity as the religion of the Roman empire was literally a political move. The Eastern and Roman Catholic church literally excommunicated each other because of politics. The Crusades were started because of politics. The seat of the Pope was dominated by a handful of families such as the Borgias and Medicis for poltical reason for several centuries. The Church would literally assert itself as the supreme political authority in all of Christendom. The fact that Christendom is even a word should tell you how wrong you are. The Church constantly pitted France, Spain, the HRE, and various Italian states against one another in order to remain a sovereign political force. What THE FUCK are you talking about.
There is no specific name nor direction but throughout the bible there are many references to punishing non-believers and apostates in organized ways. This is mostly implied in the New Testement through allusion to the old testament where it is more overtly mentioned in the form of Hebrew exceptionalism and worship of the one true god. The actions of Christians throughout time shows motivation based on a biblical basis for Jihad like actions (both the "internal struggle" aspect and the outward aspect).
There is no direct analogue, although the term "Crusade" is a nice non-biblical example

under that definition the parallel is revolution

sure not christian but same grassroots zeal

>The establishment of Christianity as the religion of the Roman empire was literally a political move. The Eastern and Roman Catholic church literally excommunicated each other because of politics. The Crusades were started because of politics. The seat of the Pope was dominated by a handful of families such as the Borgias and Medicis for poltical reason for several centuries. The Church would literally assert itself as the supreme political authority in all of Christendom. The fact that Christendom is even a word should tell you how wrong you are. The Church constantly pitted France, Spain, the HRE, and various Italian states against one another in order to remain a sovereign political force. What THE FUCK are you talking about.
Literally all this means is that the Catholic Church is a turd

I forgot the mention that the construction of the bible, the use of some and the exclusion of many bible verses were based on the political implications of various scripture meanings. Some early christian churches pushed to make certain books and beliefs a form of apostasy or infidelity to discredit other church's and their leaders.

The bible makes direct references to the legitimacy of governments/leadership and how following authorities is the will of God. This was used in the form of "divine right" and other shit for political gain and is clearly thrown in there to prevent people from stirring the pot.

clerical fascism

if you mean jihad bi-s-sayf, then the only correct answer is he Just war presented by T. Aquinas.

"First, just war must be waged by a properly instituted authority such as the state. (Proper Authority is first: represents the common good: which is peace for the sake of man's true end—God.)
Second, war must occur for a good and just purpose rather than for self-gain (for example, "in the nation's interest" is not just) or as an exercise of power (just cause: for the sake of restoring some good that has been denied. i.e. lost territory, lost goods, punishment for an evil perpetrated by a government, army, or even the civilian populace).
Third, peace must be a central motive even in the midst of violence.[20] (right intention: an authority must fight for the just reasons it has expressly claimed for declaring war in the first place. Soldiers must also fight for this intention)."

That’s not even remotely correct.
Jihad is thoroughly in a military context in the Koran.
“Personal Jihad” is a meme by a historian from Baghdad who ass pulled it from nowhere and made fake Hadith to support it. It’s never been accepted in Islamic theology outside of westerners that want to sound knowledgeable on CNN.

who do you have in mind?

Let me guess mr. armchair theologian, you are neither Muslim nor have any real knowledge on the subject, do you?

he sounds like a jerk and the other half of his post is bullshit, but jihad with sword (what this thread is about) is fard al kifaya and was formed this way during Muhammad in Medina. it was not "developed by the Rashidun Caliphs".

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar

Attached: 1491670001302.jpg (251x242, 14K)

Eheheheheeeee
Man you are sooo cool i mean lmaoing right now

CRUUUSAAAADE

GOD WILLS IT

Attached: 1488320563873.png (1280x1024, 1.38M)

I literally work in intel and sit around all day reading about Islamism.

It’s from a guy in the 11th century called Al Baghdadis (or something to that effect).

The only actual distinction in Islamic theology is if Jihad means offensive or defensive ‘struggle’ with the overwhelming majority supporting defensive including Al Qaieda and IS.